Pr oph e t ic D ia logu e a s a Pr a ct ica l Th e ologica l Ca t e gor y 1 Ge r a r d H a ll S.M . Abst r a ct I n a recent proposal, “ prophet ic dialogue” has been suggest ed as t he m ost appropriat e cat egory for describing t he t ask of Christ ian m ission t oday. This paper explores t he significance and im plicat ions of “ prophet ic dialogue” for t he t ask of pract ical t heology. Whereas “ prophecy” gives priorit y t o t he Word of God in script ure and t radit ion, “ dialogue” highlight s t he im port ance of respect ful hum an, cult ural and religious encount er. Bot h com ponent s are necessary; t heir relat ionship is dialect ical. Whet her we are concerned wit h worship and lit urgy, prayer and cont em plat ion, j ust ice and peace, t he int egrit y of creat ion, int erreligious dialogue, evangelizat ion, incult urat ion or reconciliat ion, prophet ic dialogue is a foundat ional cat egory for gauging t he effect iveness and aut hent icit y of t he t heological t ask. Raim on Panikkar’s “ cosm ot heandric dialogue” and t he “ t riple dialogue” advocat ed by Asian t heologians are t wo possible avenues for advancing pract ical t heology as “ prophet ic dialogue” . I nt r oduct ion Theology is used t o dealing wit h dichot om ies of fait h and life, act ion and cont em plat ion, m yst icism and polit ics, incult urat ion ( Christ for cult ure) and cult ural crit ique ( Christ against cult ure) . Christ ian t heology in t he West is beset wit h a cert ain dualism som et im es associat ed wit h Cat holic em phasis on sacram ent and incarnat ion and Prot est ant concern for prophecy and j udgm ent . The best ecum enical t heology at t em pt s t o bridge t he gap, t o see t he t wo poles of t heology in creat ive t ension versus divisive polarit y. The cat egory of “ prophet ic dialogue” is one such at t em pt t o develop a pract ical, m issionary t heology t hat appreciat es hum an experience and reason while being suspicious of hum an st ruct ures in Church and societ y. 2 Christ ian com m it m ent t o liberat ing praxis needs t o be equally at t ent ive t o t he power of t he Gospel—t he voice of prophecy—and t he realit y of t he hum an sit uat ion—t he voice of dialogue. The relat ionship bet ween t he t wo voices— prophecy and dialogue—is dialect ical: t hat is, t hey need t o be underst ood t oget her and in reference t o each ot her as t wo poles of t he t heological t ask. 2 The act ual t erm “ prophet ic dialogue” was int roduced at t he fift eent h General Chapt er of t he Cat holic Missionary Societ y of t he Divine Word. 3 As developed by Bevans and Schroeder, who are incident ally Divine Word Missionaries, t he t erm is proposed as t he m ost appropriat e cat egory for art iculat ing a Christ ian m issionary t heology for cont em porary t im es. They underst and Christ ian m ission in t erm s of: part icipat ion in t he life and m ission of t he Trinit y; cont inuat ion of Jesus’ m ission t o preach, serve and wit ness t o t he “ already/ not yet ” reign of God; and proclam at ion of Christ as t he world’s only saviour. 4 The essent ial com ponent s of m ission are present ed as: wit ness and proclam at ion; lit urgy, prayer and cont em plat ion; com m it m ent t o j ust ice, peace and t he int egrit y of creat ion; int erreligious dialogue; incult urat ion; reconciliat ion. 5 I n various ways, t hese will form t he bases of our t heological reflect ion on prophet ic dialogue as a foundat ional cat egory for pract ical t heology t hroughout t he rem ainder of t he paper. W it ne ss a nd Procla m a t ion The experience of t he first Christ ians aft er Pent ecost is one in which wit ness t o and proclam at ion of t he presence of t he risen Christ and t he Spirit in t heir m idst is foundat ional. Word and deed belong t oget her: “ You are t o be m y wit nesses in Jerusalem . . . ( and) even t o t he ends of t he eart h” ( Act s 1: 8) ; “ Go, t herefore, m ake disciples of all nat ions . . . .” ( Mt t . 28: 19) . Wit ness and proclaim : aut hent ic wit ness is necessary for effect ive proclam at ion; and effect ive proclam at ion is it self a form of wit ness. I n Luke’s version, Jesus t ells t he Em m aus disciples t hat it is writ t en in t he Script ures t hat “ t he Christ would suffer and on t he t hird day rise from t he dead, and t hat , in his nam e, repent ance and forgiveness of sins would be preached” . To which he adds: “ You are wit nesses t o t his” ( Lk 24: 47f.) . Wit ness and proclam at ion are not prim arily about doct rines, but a way of life lived by Jesus and t aught t o his disciples. Jesus’ own 3 m ission is one in which his t eachings express in word what his m iracles dem onst rat e in act ion. His com m on rit ual of t able- fellowship wit h t he poor and m arginal wit nesses t o what he proclaim s in word and parable. Christ ian evangelizat ion inevit ably fails where t he proclam at ion of t he Gospel is not at t he sam e t im e expressed by “ t he wit ness of an aut hent ically Christ ian life” . 6 ( Evangelii Nunt iandi, 41) . I ndeed, as st at ed by t he Second Vat ican Council, “ t his split bet ween t he fait h which m any profess and t heir daily lives deserves t o be count ed am ong t he m ore serious errors of our age” . 7 ( Gaudium et Spes, 43) . Whereas Cat holics speak of “ evangelizat ion” , Prot est ant s and Evangelicals use t he t erm “ evangelism ” . Bot h signify, perhaps wit h different em phases, t hat wit ness and proclam at ion are int egral and int errelat ed com ponent s of m ission. This is m ade clear in Prot est ant m issionary t heologian David Bosch’s descript ion of evangelism as: t hat dim ension and act ivit y of t he church’s m ission which, by word and deed and in t he light of part icular condit ions and a part icular cont ext , offers every person and every com m unit y, everywhere, a valid opport unit y t o be direct ly challenged t o a radical reorient at ion of t heir lives, a reorient at ion which involves such t hings as deliverance from slavery t o t he world and it s powers; em bracing Christ as Saviour and Lord; becom ing a living m em ber of his com m unit y, t he church; being enlist ed int o his service of reconciliat ion, peace and j ust ice on eart h; and being com m it t ed t o God’s purpose of placing all t hings under t he rule of Christ . 8 I n ot her words, proclam at ion of t he Gospel occurs t hrough t he aut hent ic wit ness of Christ ian lives and t he real experience of God’s purpose, Spirit and reign in t he world. 4 Alt hough it is t rue t hat “ proclam at ion is t he foundat ion, sum m it and cent re of evangelizat ion” , 9 such proclam at ion should be carried out wit h “ bold hum ilit y” . 10 This m eans t hat proclam at ion of t he Gospel needs t o t ake place in t he cont ext of respect ful dialogue, solidarit y and collaborat ion wit h t he hum an fam ily. I n t his cont ext wit ness has priorit y over proclam at ion because, wit hout aut hent ic wit ness, t he t rue Gospel is not being preached. Neit her will it be heard. Proclam at ion should be in t he form of an invit at ion and as an answer t o a quest ion: it is genuinely dialogical. One proclaim s wit h a list ening heart , hum bly and even from a posit ion of weakness and vulnerabilit y. One also proclaim s in recognit ion t hat we always have som et hing t o learn and receive from ot hers and t heir t radit ions, 11 since t he Spirit of God knows no bounds. Aut hent ic, wit ness- based proclam at ion disclaim s a posit ion of superiorit y and so approaches dialogue as t he m eet ing of persons on com m on pilgrim age. Pract ical t heology can be described as an evangelical act ivit y which em erges from t he heart of t he life of t he Christ ian com m unit y. This is t he place of wit ness or what Terry Veling calls t he vocat ional aspect of pract ical t heology as “ response t o t he call of God in which we com e t o realize t hat our purpose for ‘being in t he world’ is t o respond t o t he purposes of God” . 12 The pract ical t heologian is called t o be a wit ness t o t he Word and t o t he world—or, perhaps bet t er st at ed, t o wit ness t o t he Word in t he world. This requires at t ent iveness t o t he Word of God in t he Script ures; but , equally, “ we m ust be aware of and underst and t he aspirat ions, t he yearnings and t he oft en dram at ic feat ures of t he world in which we live” . 13 The t ask of int erpret ing God’s Word for t his people in t his place and t im e—surely t he goal of all pract ical t heology—is t hen a work of bot h wit ness and proclam at ion. I t is a work t hat arises from a deep list ening t o t he Script ures and profound at t ent iveness t o t he ‘signs of 5 t he t im es’ in order t o speak aut hent ically of j ust ice, peace, salvat ion and God’s purposes for our world. Lit ur gy, Pr a ye r a nd Cont e m pla t ion Not only are lit urgy, prayer and cont em plat ion cent ral t o Christ ian life and m ission, t hey are—or should be—cent ral t o pract ical t heological reflect ion. John Fuellenbach speaks of t he Church’s t riple responsibilit y: ( 1) t o proclaim in word and sacram ent t he definit ive arrival of t he kingdom in Jesus Christ ; ( 2) t o offer herself as a sign t hat t he kingdom of God is already operat ive in t he world t oday; ( 3) and t o challenge societ y as a whole t o t ransform it self according t o t he kingdom values of j ust ice, love and peace. 14 I n order t o wit ness t o and proclaim t he saving presence of God in t he world, t he Church and it s t heologians are first invit ed t o experience som et hing of t hat realit y it t heir own lives. I n m ost Christ ian t radit ions, t he lit urgy—in part icular t he Eucharist —is recognized as t he source and sum m it of t he Church’s life: it is here t hat t he definit ive arrival of t he kingdom in Jesus Christ is m ost aut hent ically proclaim ed in word and sacram ent . Far from being a break from t he pressures and com plexit ies of life, t he lit urgy is t he place where t he event s and unredeem ed realit ies of t he world are brought t o and by t he com m unit y in worship t o enlarge our vision and challenge our ways of being and act ing. This should also ext end our t heological horizons by raising new quest ions about God’s hopes for ourselves, our Church and our world. The lit urgy is also t he place where we are nourished and em powered t o serve and live our lives for ot hers and t o experience t he ‘dangerous m em ory’ of Jesus Christ who cam e not t o be served, but t o give his life as a ransom for m any ( Mt t . 20: 28) . This is t he heart of t he Eucharist ic sacrifice sym bolizing t he broken body of Christ and t he healing power of t he Spirit . The lit urgy does not end as long as it s part icipant s carry it s m essage of hope, healing and salvat ion t o t he world wit hin and beyond t he Church. 6 Som et im es our view of Christ ian lit urgy m ay be what I would call t oo “ in- house” . Let m e explain. Lit urgy is not sim ply about m y or m y fait h- com m unit y’s relat ionship wit h t he living God. I t is cert ainly t hat . But it is also wit nesses t o t hose who are not norm ally part of t he worshipping com m unit y or are t here in varying degrees of separat ion or even alienat ion from t he Church. They are t here for t he funeral or t he wedding; t hey m ay have lit t le underst anding of what t he Church or it s lit urgy is about ; t hey m ay carry deep wounds from past church experiences. This is cert ainly a challenge for lit urgical presiders, past oral associat es and pract ical t heologians t o devise lit urgies t hat are genuinely welcom ing of t he pilgrim , st ranger and passer- by. I t is not sim ply a m at t er of using appropriat e hym ns and prayers and t he sensit ive planning of t he lit urgy. All t hat goes wit hout saying. More poignant ly, it is a quest ion of aut hent icit y in wit ness and worship t hat is finally t he gift of t he Spirit , enabling t he Church t o offer herself as a sign of God’s kingdom in t he world t oday. Wit hout such aut hent icit y t he Church’s responsibilit y t o challenge people and societ y according t o t he kingdom values of j ust ice and peace will fall on deaf ears. Wit hout such aut hent icit y, t he pilgrim , st ranger or passer- by is unlikely t o be t roubled by what ever t he Church or it s t heologians have t o say. I am not only saying t hat lit urgy, prayer and cont em plat ion are appropriat e act ivit ies for pract ical t heological reflect ion. More radically, it is t o say t hat t he pract ical t heologian him / her self needs t o be challenged and nourished t hrough a lit urgical, prayerful and cont em plat ive life—or at least by a life in which lit urgy, prayer, cont em plat ion and ongoing conversion fuel t he fires of reflect ion on what God asks of t he Church and it s t heologians t oday. Just ice , Pe a ce a nd t he I nt e gr it y of Cr e a t ion 7 Cont em porary pract ical t heology is not ably com m it t ed t o t he work of j ust ice, peace and t he int egrit y of creat ion. Evident ly, t his is a m inist ry and m ission of ‘prophet ic dialogue’ in which wit ness and word, act ion and preaching, need t o reflect each ot her t o be credible and effect ive. Liberat ion t heologians have played an im port ant role in highlight ing t he int im at e relat ionship bet ween t he prom ise of salvat ion and t he dem ands of j ust ice. 15 They have also provided a m et hodology which is applicable for pract ical t heology and wort h sum m arizing in t his cont ext . Clodovis Boff writ es of a t hree- fold m ediat ion. 16 Socio- analyt ic m ediat ion seeks t o est ablish t he root causes of povert y and oppression in social syst em s. I t uses bot h sociological and narrat ive t ools: t he form er invest igat es ideological and econom ic fact ors; t he lat t er list ens t o t he voices of t he poor and m arginalized so t hat t he poor st and up for t hem selves as subj ect s and voices of t he disfigured children of God. Herm eneut ical m ediat ion asks what t he Word of God has t o say t o sit uat ions of inj ust ice especially in t he light of privileged j ust ice t ext s such as Exodus, t he Prophet s, Gospels, Act s and Revelat ion. I t also seeks t o ret rieve oft en- neglect ed social j ust ice t eachings in t he Christ ian t radit ion. Pract ical m ediat ion sees praxis as t he st art ing point and goal of liberat ion t heology. I t seeks t o est ablish crit eria for act ion t hat are non- violent , hist orically viable, relat ed t o t he overall st rat egy of incarnat ing t he reign of God. Pract ical m ediat ion includes specific program s for decision- m aking, im plem ent at ion and evaluat ion. Taken t oget her, t hese t hree m ediat ions represent syst em at ic engagem ent wit h t he social sciences, script ure, t radit ion and t he poor for t he sake of prophet ic, liberat ing praxis. I n t erm s of prophet ic dialogue, t he Church does not so m uch speak t o and for t he poor and m arginalized; it s aim is t o st and in solidarit y wit h t he poor and oppressed, em powering t hem t o speak in t heir own voice. Liberat ion t heology highlight s t he dim ension of prophecy ‘from below’. 8 The Church’s m ission of j ust ice as int egral t o t he reign of God is also expressed in it s com m it m ent t o peacebuilding and t he int egrit y of creat ion. I srael’s dream of peace is epit om ized in Jesus’ own m inist ry of peace. The Church is not only called upon t o live as a com m unit y of peace, love and j ust ice, but t o be a sign and inst rum ent of t hat peace in t he m anner of it s life and t heology. I t m ust prom ot e peace am ong peoples, cult ures and religions, support prophet s of peace, provide program s t hat encourage reconciliat ion and reverence for life. The wit ness aspect of peace is also expressed in prayer and penance for peace: one t hinks of t he init iat ives of John Paul I I in j oining wit h people of all religious t radit ions at Assisi ( 1986 & 2002) t o pray for world peace. 17 Pract ical t heology has a part icular responsibilit y t o assist in m ediat ing ways of peace in a world m arred by hum an conflict . To achieve t his, pract ical t heologians need t o dialogue wit h cult ural ant hropologist s and represent at ives of ot her disciplines who cont ribut e t o t he growing lit erat ure in t he field of “ Peace St udies” . 18 They also need t o be open and self- crit ical especially in regard t o t he Church’s less t han im peccable hist orical record in regard t o peace issues. Theologically speaking, ecological awareness and respect for creat ion have not been at t he forefront of t he Church’s t hinking—alt hough t his is now beginning t o change. Perhaps t his is a case of a dialogue enforced on t he Church t hrough new circum st ances of global warm ing and increased environm ent al devast at ion. An over- individualized t heology of sin and grace ignored t he social and cosm ic aspect s of salvat ion—wit h it s vision of a new heaven and a new eart h ( I s. 66: 22; Rev. 21: 1) . Ot her crit ics point t o t he dissociat ion of t he t heologies of creat ion and salvat ion. 19 Not t hat t he not ion of t he sacredness of t he eart h is an ent irely new idea. A herm eneut ic of ret rieval connect s us t o t he largely repressed cult ural and ecclesial m em ories of t he cosm ic perspect ives of saint s and m yst ics such as St Paul, I renaeus, Francis of Assisi, Hildegaard of Bingin and Teilhard de 9 Chardin. All t his is known. What m ay be less well known is Raim on Panikkar’s descript ion of an em erging t errest rial—or cosm ot heandric—dialogue which advances t his discussion in t oday’s pluralist ic cont ext and challenges pract ical t heology t o dialogue wit h what he calls “ cont em porary m yst icism ” . 20 Cosm ot he a ndr ic D ia logue : Cosm ic, H um a n, D ivine For Panikkar, t he divine, hum an and cosm ic realit ies all belong t o t he real and int erpenet rat e one anot her so t hat everyt hing displays ant hropom orphic feat ures as well as divine and m at erial ones. The cosm ic no less t han t he divine is an irreducible dim ension of realit y—and neit her is subservient t o hum anit y, alt hough hum anit y is unt hinkable wit hout t he int erpenet rat ion of divine and m at erial dim ensions. Unt il cont em porary t im es, t his vision has been int egral t o all known cult ural and religious t radit ions, albeit expressed wit h unique sym bols, idiom s and rit uals. The West ern- inspired proj ect which now sees it self repeat ed t hroughout t he world—hum ans are individualized egos, God/ gods/ heaven no m ore t han hum an proj ect ions, and t he cosm os reduced t o a devit alized, dead eart h at t he whim of hum an exploit at ion—has reached it s crisis. A new m yst ical awareness is em erging t o rescue hum anit y from it s excruciat ing isolat ion, t o save t he eart h from ext inct ion, and t o reconnect bot h t o t he divine m yst ery at work everywhere. Panikkar perceives t his cosm ot heandric experience as a ‘new innocence’ em erging in diverse ways t hroughout t he religions and cult ures of t he world. 21 I t is not an invent ion of t he Unit ed Nat ions nor anot her program for change inst it ut ed by governm ent s or corporat ions. I t is prim arily t he work of t he Spirit which cannot be im posed; it m ust be allowed t o em erge spont aneously leading t o a ‘radical m et anoia’, a com plet e t urning of m ind, heart and spirit . We are not t alking of a philosophical, scient ific or t heological hypot hesis; it is a spirit ualit y not an ideology; it m ay be 10 expressed in m any different t hought - syst em s, but it is not in t he first inst ance t he result of t hought ; it is a m yt h. I n broad out line, t he cosm ot heandric insight recognizes t hat hum ans belong t o t he cosm os: what is good/ bad for t he eart h is in equal m easure good/ bad for m e—and vice versa. I t goes wit hout saying, hum anit y and t he cosm os are not —or should not —be in conflict , let alone at war, wit h one anot her. We cannot ‘save’ ourselves wit hout incorporat ing t he cosm os ( and t he divine m yst ery) int o t he sam e vent ure. Salvat ion, fulfillm ent , com plet ion are not reducible t o som e far off t im eless world; it is a ‘t em pit ernal experience’ in which t im e present , t im e past and t im e fut ure m erge t oget her. This is anat hem a t o t he pan- m onet ary econom ic ideology of advanced capit alism t hat awards greed and idolizes m at erial possessions. Moreover, t here is no dichot om y bet ween t he socalled nat ure m yst icism of non- t heist ic syst em s and t he t heist ic m yst icism of t hose who seek com m union wit h God. I f I clim b t he highest m ount ain, I will find God t here; if I go t o t he dept hs of an apophat ic Godhead, I will find Ult im at e realit y t here. Creat or and creat ure are inseparable from t he hum an heart which searches. The ent ire realit y is com m it t ed t o t he sam e unique advent ure. Panikkar m aint ains t his em erging spirit ualit y prom ises t o heal t he ot her open wound of our t im es: t he chasm bet ween t he m at erial and t he spirit ual, t he sacred and t he secular, t he t em poral and et ernal. Service t o t he eart h is divine service; love of God is hum an love. Perhaps we advanced a lit t le beyond what is norm ally ent ailed in pract ical t heology. However, whet her or not one is ent hralled by, indifferent t o, or crit ical of Panikkar’s cosm ot heandric vision, t he im port ance of pract ical t heology dialoguing wit h cont em porary secular and religious spirit ualit ies—as well as philosophies, t heologies and ideologies—is surely int egral t o t he not ion of “ prophet ic 11 dialogue” for peace, j ust ice and t he fut ure of creat ion. Poet s, m yst ics and prophet s m ay oft en be found am ong t he poor and m arginalized peoples—or t he ‘lit t le ones’ as Jesus preached—and it is t heir voices t hat challenge all our pract ical t heological ideas and program s. Tr iple D ia logue —Libe r a t ion, I nt e r r e ligious D ia logue I ncult ur a t ion, The m ost advanced program for prophet ic dialogue is present ed at t he 1999 Synod of t he Federat ion of t he Asian Bishops’ Conferences ( FABC) . 22 Here t he bishops speak of t he necessit y of developing a t riple dialogue wit h Asia’s poor ( liberat ion) , it s cult ures ( incult urat ion) and it s religions ( int erreligious dialogue) in order t o deal wit h t he t hree cont ext s of Asia: m assive povert y, cult ural diversit y, and religious pluralism . 23 Alt hough first conceived as t hree dist inct dialogues, t he FABC now conceives t hem as a t hreepronged single approach t o Christ ian m ission in Asia. This posit ion was argued m ost forcefully by Asian t heologians such as Sri Lankan and I ndian Jesuit s, Aloysius Pieris and Michael Am aladoss, and has been repeat edly affirm ed by t he FABC. These t hree dialogues m ust be pract ised t oget her: only t hen can each guarant ee t he aut hent icit y and success of t he ot hers. I ndeed, it is im possible t o draw a clear dividing line am ong t hese t hree dialogues since not rarely it is, as Jesus’ m inist ry m akes abundant ly clear, t he poor and m arginalized people who t end t o be t he m ost religious and m ost at t ached t o t heir cult ures. Since we have already addressed t he issue of liberat ion as dialogue wit h t he poor in t heir pursuit of j ust ice, t hese rem arks will be largely lim it ed t o m at t ers of incult urat ion and int erreligious dialogue. Pet er Phan suggest s t hat on t he success or failure of incult urat ion hangs t he fut ure of t he Church. 24 Too oft en incult urat ion has been underst ood in rat her cosm et ic t erm s: an African drum here; an Aboriginal or Maori dance t here; Asian art ifact s som ewhere else. But 12 t he real quest ion of incult urat ion arises, for t he m ost part , in cont ext of hundreds of years of West ern colonizat ion along wit h t he inevit able im posit ion of a European way of being Church. The relat ionship bet ween religion and cult ure is always com plex; and t he process of learning t o present Jesus Christ and t he Church wit h an aut hent ic indigenous face and heart requires deep list ening and challenging dialogue. This can be as painful for Europeans as for I ndigenous peoples in raising consciousness about what const it ut es “ real Christ ianit y” . Moreover, in t he Rom an Cat holic t radit ion at least , t here is oft en t he addit ional issue of a highly cent ralized and hierarchical m odel of aut horit y t hat needs t o be t ransform ed in t he int erest s of enabling genuine local churches t o em erge. I n t he words of a Jam es Blunt song—“ I ’ve got a plan! ” 25 Or, I should say, I ndonesian Carm elit e Bishop Francis Hadisum art a has a plan. He suggest s we need t o “ m ove from adapt at ion t o incult urat ion” by est ablishing new pat riarchat es in Sout h, Sout h- East and East Asia: These new pat riarchat es, conciliar in nat ure, would support , st rengt hen, and broaden t he work of individual episcopal conferences. As t he episcopal conferences, in com m union wit h neighboring conferences in t he sam e ( new) pat riarchat e, m ove forward in m ission, new Cat holic Rit es would com e int o exist ence. Thus, we envisage a radical decent ralizat ion of t he Lat in Rit e—devolving int o a host of local Rit es in Asia, unit ed collegially in fait h and t rust , list ening t o each ot her t hrough synodal inst rum ent s at parish, deanery, vicariat e, diocesan, nat ional/ regional, cont inent al, and int ernat ional levels. Then, alm ost four decades aft er t he Second Vat ican Council, we would t ruly experience a great synodal epoch. 26 13 This church st ruct ure is not som et hing new. I t is root ed in t he t hree classical ecclesiological principles of cat holicit y, collegialit y, and subsidiarit y. Moreover, it im plem ent s t he t riadic church organizat ion of t he first m illennium : t he part icular church wit h it s bishop; regional ecclesiast ical unit s, especially t he pat riarchal churches wit h t heir pat riarchs; and t he universal church wit h t he pope as it s head. 27 The im port ance of t he “ ancient pat riarchal Churches” was recognized by Vat ican I I when it said: I t has com e about t hrough divine providence t hat , in t he course of t im e, different Churches set up in various places by t he apost les and t heir successors j oined t oget her in a m ult iplicit y of organically unit ed groups which, whilst safeguarding t he unit y of fait h and t he unique divine st ruct ure of t he universal Church, have t heir own discipline, enj oy t heir own lit urgical usage and inherit a t heological and spirit ual pat rim ony. ( Lum en Gent ium , 23) I n t heory at least , t his sit uat ion already exist s am ong East ern Cat holic rit es. I t is now t im e for t his t o be ext ended t o non- European churches as perhaps t he m ost im port ant st ruct ural t ransform at ion t hat t akes incult urat ion seriously. This would highlight in an unprecedent ed way t he t rue nat ure of t he Church as a com m union of local churches—and in so doing highlight t he im port ance of prophet ic dialogue am ong t he churches. Pot ent ial ecum enical im plicat ions are not ewort hy and call for fut ure explorat ion by pract ical t heologians. I nt erreligious dialogue is an equally crucial t ask for t he Church in t he em erging global sit uat ion. One has only t o consider t he rise of I slam since, at least in st at ist ical t erm s, Christ ians and Muslim s m ake up over half t he world’s populat ion. From personal experience I can at t est t o t he 14 realit y t hat Christ ian- Muslim dialogue is far from easy and not universally successful—even t hough t here is significant good will on bot h sides. Yet , I find m yself as a pract ical t heologian increasingly com m it t ed t o int erreligious dialogue from bot h hum an and Christ ian perspect ives. At one level, such dialogue connect s m e t o t he com m on hum anit y which I share wit h all people regardless of cult ure, et hnicit y, religion, ideology or belief. As Wayne Teasdale st at es, “ dialogue is a j ourney int o perpet ual discovery, cont inual wonder, t he sheer j oy of am azem ent in t he realizat ion t hat we are aft er all t he sam e in t he realit y of our hum an nat ure and all t he qualit ies of being hum an” . 28 I also find m yself in agreem ent wit h Hans Küng’s well- known words: no peace am ong t he nat ions wit hout peace am ong t he religions; and no peace am ong t he religions wit hout dialogue am ong t he religions. 29 Or, t o quot e Teasdale again: “ Ult im at ely, dialogue is a survival skill, and int erfait h dialogue m ay well prove t o be t he m ost valuable vehicle for prom ot ing peace and harm ony in societ y and t he world” . 30 So, at t his level, int erreligious dialogue can be seen as a service t o hum anit y and t he world. From a Christ ian perspect ive, I am inspired by m y own Church’s official t eachings t hat highlight int erreligious dialogue as an int egral elem ent of t he Church’s evangelizing m ission ( Redem pt oris Missio, 55) . Ot her docum ent s speak of t he fruit s of dialogue: learning about t he posit ive value of ot her t radit ions; overcom ing prej udice; purifying cult ures of dehum anizing elem ent s; upholding t radit ional cult ural values of indigenous peoples; and purifying one’s own fait h ( Dialogue and Proclam at ion, 43- 49) . Alt hough t here is a cert ain t ension bet ween m ission and dialogue in t hese docum ent s, I find m yself at ease “ wit nessing” t o m y own Christ ian fait h in t he cont ext of int erreligious encount er t hat is m ore int ent on list ening and learning t han preaching and proclaim ing. The im age of Jesus wit h t he wom an at t he well, or t he pict ure of t he risen Christ in his encount er wit h t he Em m aus disciples, is a m odel of dialogue t hat does not 15 im pose. I s such an approach “ prophet ic” ? I nsofar as it is open t o t he experience of friendship and com m union, new insight s, genuine dept h and ult im at ely a new consciousness—even in sm all ways—t hen t he words of t he prophet Ezekiel spring t o m ind: “ I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit wit hin you” ( Ez. 36: 26) . I nt erreligious dialogue seeks t o respond t o t he prophet ic challenge of playing our role in building t he new heaven and new eart h ( Rev. 21: 1) t hat includes rat her t han excludes t he religious and secular ot her. This is cert ainly a—perhaps t he—prophet ic challenge of our t im es. Conclusion Pract ical t heology is always a work in progress. My endeavour here has been t o dem onst rat e t hat it is a work best carried out in a spirit of “ prophet ic dialogue” : it m ust be done wit h a list ening heart as well as an int elligent head and art iculat e t ongue. I t is also t he work of t he Church, t he com m unit y of fait h. No single t heologian can be involved in all t he kinds of prophet ic dialogue covered in t his paper lest t he dialogues rem ain superficial—and t he t heologies t hat spring from t hem equally so. My int ent ion has sim ply been t o suggest t hat what ever pract ical issues one is dealing wit h—peace, j ust ice, reconciliat ion, liberat ion, incult urat ion, int erreligious encount er—, t he cat egory of “ prophet ic dialogue” is helpful for underst anding and evaluat ing t he t heological t ask. Specific m et hodological approaches will be developed by ot hers—alt hough I see in t he t riple m ediat ion of liberat ion t heology a helpful foundat ion wit h m uch pot ent ial for pract ical t heology. The not ions of “ cosm ot heandric dialogue” involving t he divine, hum an and eart hly realit ies and “ t riple dialogue” wit h t he poor, cult ures and religions are challenging and inst ruct ive. They rem ind us t hat analyt ical powers used t o underst and a sit uat ion only ever scrat ch t he surface of t he full eart hly- hum an- divine realit y in which we are privileged t o play our part . 16 Officia l Rom a n Ca t holic Chur ch D ocum e nt s used in t he t ext . Available in English t ranslat ion on t he Official Vat ican Websit e: ht t p: / / www.vat ican.va/ Lum e n Ge nt ium ( 1964) Vat ican Council I I Dogm at ic Const it ut ion on t he Church Ga udium e t Spe s ( 1965) Vat ican Council I I Past oral Const it ut ion on t he Church in t he Modern Word Eva nge lii N unt ia ndi ( 1975) Apost olic Exhort at ion of Paul VI Re de m pt or is M issio ( 1990) Encyclical Let t er of John Paul I I D ia logue a nd Pr ocla m a t ion ( 1991) Joint Com m issions for I nt erreligious Dialogue and Evangelizat ion of Peoples 1 A version of this paper was first presented at The Association of Practical Theology in Oceania Conference [APTO] in Auckland, New Zealand, 3rd-5th November 2006. 2 See Stephen Bevans & Roger Schroeder, Constants in Context (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2004), 348-395. 3 Bevans & Schroeder, Note 1, 458. 4 Bevans & Schroeder, 348. 5 Bevans & Schroeder, 351. 6 Paul VI, Apostolic Letter (1975), Evangelii Nuntiandi, n. 41. 7 Document of Second Vatican Council (1965), Gaudium et Spes, n. 43. 8 David Bosch, Transforming Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1991), 420. 9 Joint Vatican Commissions for Interreligious Dialogue and Evangelization of Peoples (1991), Dialogue and Proclamation, n. 10. 10 Bosch, 489. 11 Dialogue and Proclamation, n. 49. 12 Terry Veling, Practical Theology: On Earth as it is in Heaven (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2005), 12. 17 13 Gaudium et Spes, n. 4. John Fuellenbach, The Kingdom of God: The Message of Jesus Today (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995), 270. 15 “All liberation is an anticipation of the complete redemption of Christ”. South American Roman Catholic Bishops’ Conference, Medellin, 1968. Liberation Theology Chronology [Accessed 4 November 2007] http://home.comcast.net/~chtongyu/liberation/chronology.html 16 Clodovis Boff, Theology and Praxis: Epistemological Foundations (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1987). 17 See, for example, Wayne Teasdale, Catholicism in Dialogue: Conversations across Traditions (Oxford: Sheed & Ward, 2004), 54-57. 18 To mention one significant work with an extensive bibliography of literature in the field, see Raimon Panikkar, Cultural Disarmament: The Way to Peace (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Know Press, 1995). 19 See authors such as Thomas Berry, Evening Thoughts: Reflecting on Earth as Sacred Community (Sierra Club Books & University of California Press, 2006) and Matthew Fox, A New Reformation: Creation Spirituality and the Transformation of Christianity (Inner Traditions Bear and Co., 2006). Perhaps Fox did a disservice by pitting salvation and creation in such apparently opposing camps. Berry’s work shows a more integral appreciation of the interrelationship between creation and salvation, as between cosmology and theology. 20 For his most systematic presentation, see Raimon Panikkar, The Cosmotheandric Experience (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1993). 21 Panikkar, The Cosmotheandric Experience, 149-152. 22 See Peter C. Phan, ed., The Asian Synod: Text and Commentaries (Maryknoll NY: Orbis, 2002). 23 On this threefold dialogue, see Peter C. Phan, “Christian Mission in Asia: A New Way of Being Church”, in Peter C. Phan, In Our Own Tongues: Perspectives from Asia on Mission and Inculturation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2003), 13-31. 24 Phan, In Our Own Tongues, xii. 25 “You are Beautiful” in James Blunt, Back to Bedlam (2004). 26 The Asian Synod, 120f. 27 Herman Pottmeyer, cited Peter Phan, “Reception or Subversion of Vatican II by the Asian Churches? A New Way of Being Church in Asia”, Australian Ejournal of Theology, Issue 6 (February 2006). http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/aejt_6/phan.htm Accessed 31st October 2007. 28 Teasdale, 26. 29 Hans Küng, cited in Vision of Peace among Religions. http://www.interspirit.net/vpar/home.cfm Accessed 31st October 2007. 30 Teasdale, 27. 14 Source: Australian Ejournal of Theology, Issue 10 (Pentecost 2007). 18